Salmon River Preservation Bill

United States Senate Committee on interior and insular affaris March 15, 1960
Dear Friend:
You will recall that in my last newsletter
I asked for your views on my Salmon
River Preservation Bill, which would prohibit
dams on the Salmon River pending solution of
the fish passage problem; and on a feasibility
study for a Sawtooth National Park.
I was deeply gratified at the exceptionally
heavy response to my poll, which
indicated widespread interest in these two
proposals. If you returned one of the post
card ballots, your vote is included in the
tabulation which I have reproduced on the
back of this letter. If not, I'm sure you
will be interested, nevertheless, in the
results.
Let me know if you would like to receive
additional information on either of these matters.
Sincerely, Frank Church United States Senate
TABULATION BY COUNTIES OF RESPONSES TO POST CARD POLL OF SENA10R FRANK CHURCH
SALMON RIVER PRESERVATION BILL STUDY ON SAWTOOTH NATIONAL PARK
(Baaed on 8223 replies as or Mar.3)(Based on 8343 replies as or Mar.3)
For Against For ~ainst
8~. ll8 ADA 5 ADAMS -~ --4
624 6o BANNOCK --;-oT 91
Oil s BEAR LAKE 6 ---s 96 BENEWAH 25
~ 23 BINGHAM ~1~ 34
4s BLAINE ~~~ 172 m= BOISE 12
21 BONNER 152 -M 0 44 BONNEVILLE 33a a- 4 BOUNDARY 5 2
5 BUTTE 51 27
-sg~ 55a ·CcAAMNYAOS N 50212 1
1~ CARIBOU 66 9
l;u_ CASSIA 101 l .L. 5 CLARK ~ =rn= J5 CLEARWATER ~
~~ CUSTER 1!4 200
ELMORE 20 oo--- 5 FRANKLIN 6s ~ +M ll FREMONT 6s 10 GEM 6 20
25 18 GOODING 70 ~ ~.... . . . ..
121_ 21 IDAHO 138 ~
1*-
lb JEFFERSON ~6
~~ JEROME 3~~ 65
342 KOOTENAI 27
275 2I LATAH 2 8 22
330 Il LEMHI 220 U9
102 LEWIS 104 4 mr 2 LINCOLN 25 34
15§
15 MADISON 25 li
12 MINIDOKA 25 30
2n 21j: NEZ PERCE 222 15
5 ONEIDA ls 6
ml 12 OWYHEE 3 -fS 1m- 2 PAYETTE 1os
3]_ 10 POWER 3 9
1!21_ 22 SHOSHONE 151j: 31
3Q_ TETON 31 --m ~ 5t TWIN FALLS 255
VALLEY
s4
11 mr- 18 WASHINGTON 23.
7241 ___2.8g 6483 1860
Percentage in favor 88.~~~ Percentage in favor 77.71%
Percentage opposed 11. Percentage opposed 22.29%
RANCH-HO e CATTLE RANCHES REAL TY TS LYNN TUTTLE
P, 0, BOX 186 - CLARKSTON, WASHINGT
PROCESSED
Dear Frank: Enclosed some of my thinking. I agree with your proposition to hold up development on the ? but think it should also include further development on the middle Snake including building of the Little Hells Canyon by Idaho POwer. In the meantime I would let ? go ahead. I would see to it that the ? run was resotred of the clearwater. This used to be one of the ? runs--until the ? took over. There is no reason why it should not be restored ont he Middle Fork and the South Fork. THis would provide us as many fish as the Salmon River. In the meantime further studies could be made ton the upper High Nez Perce dam and further fish studies encouraged. Sincerely yours, Evelyn Tuttle.
Bon. Frank Church, u.s.s.
Senate Office Building
Washington 1 D.c.
Dear Frank:
BRUCE BOWLER
LAWYER
244 SONNA BUILDING
BOISE, IDAHO
PHONE 3·4963
June 17 1 1960
Yesterday I attended a prehearing conference that the Federal Power
Coaaission had t~ough its Bxasdner, Bdward B. ~ah1 at Portland, in
connection with the applications of Pacific Northwest Pewer Co~any
for the Mountain Sheep project and the Washington Public Power Supply
Systea for the Nez Perce project.
It was a good conference and its purpose of facilitating organization
of intervenors• evidence concerning fish passage and its probleas was
accoaplished to considerable .xtent.
I there heard that your Salaon River preservation b i l l 1 S 25861 had
been reported out of Coaaittee. I have seen no Preas notices or heard
any other word in this regard. lry previous pipelines in Washington,
Stewart Brandborg and Charlie Calliaon 1 are no longer with the National
Wildlife Federation, and hence I need sa.. first-hand adVice on status
of your bill and what we might do to aid acc~lishaent of this objective.
I found the conference and those attending very interestinc1 and had
opportunity to beca.e acquainted with Evelyn Cooper and soae of the
staff counsel of the Federal Power Coaaission. I aa certain that we
cannot now risk the Salaon River with Nez Perce, and feel confident
that an adequate record of eVidence of the reasons why, properly aade
to the Federal Power Coaaisaion1 should result in denial of that application.
I was particularly ~ressed by conversations that I had with
the attorneys for the Federal Power Coaaission on the genuineness of
their concern that a good record be aade on the real substance that
exists in the fisheries resource in the areas of controversy concerning
the pending applications for licSJlae0 It looks to • like this is the
tiae to do the big job, and I believe that the intervenors better
appreciate the ~ortance of an adequate record of real evidence on
Hon. Frank Church, u.s.a. -2- June 171 1960
the significance of the Colu.bia River fishery which is acre and aore
being recognized as a biK thing.
Thanks for letting u know about your bill.
Best personal regards.
Sincerely,
~ Bruce Bowler
BB:rc
Dictated 6/16/60
# ~
WJVq
CO~Y
Malvin Brunaon
1295 Suaanne Avenue
Idaho Palla, Idaho
Dear Mr, Bruna on t
June 231 1960
Many thanka tor writing to let
a.J.- . . . . . . .
me know or your approval or my bill to
preserve the Salmon River aa a fiah
sanctuary. I am hopeful that the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will act
on this bill in time for it to be considered
by the Senate before the adJournment of the
Senate, Your interest and support will be
helpful, and I want to thank you again tor
taking the time to write,
11noerely,
hank Church
Hon. Frank Church,
U.S. Senator from Idaho,
The Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Church:
It is my expectation
in all Idaho dailies and in
sometime next week and that
your stand for preservation
S-E-NA1" OR F F al. rfield
D
that the enclosed letter will appear
the great Seattle and Portland papers
these papers will take steps to su9port
of the spawning grounds on Salmon River.
I do not have the details on your bill restraining the building
of dams on the Salmon but know in general what it is expected
to accomplish. I believe it is a step in the right direction but
don't believe you have gone far enough or used enough imagination.
I suggest you give the enclosed letter a careful reading
and then ponder carefully on its potential. The possibilities
have been in my mind for many years and for you it should be the
opportunity of a lifetime.
Senator, you are just the boy to put it over and if you
do, your political future will be assured for all time. You will
become known as the man who saved the Salmon and will be regarded
as the father of the Salmon Industry. It may take you to the
White House.
Drop that Sawtooth Park you are working on. It offers
some advanta .. ~es but many Idahoans dun' t; want the Park. It is
making you enemies and causing trouble within the ranks of the
Farty. I'm not a stockman but I question the value of a Park
in that area and have published arguments eetting forth my views.
These arguments I will forward to you later.
But this save-the-fish plan is something we can all •!;et
together on. It should greatly benefit not only Idaho but the
entire Nor~hwest. It is something that should have been dune
over sixty years ago but it is still not too late. I sug.:;est you
m8ke it yuur main effort. It will take years to 9ut over, but
once done you will be established in the eyes of the Ration and
the World for all time.
~ Please send me a
~ ~xists at present.
CoDy to: Sen. Dworshak.
Rep. Budge.
Rep. Pfost.
copy of your proposed
VI. H. Cr,,ner,
Democratic ?reci.nct Committeeman,
Fairfield, Idaho.
Let us Build the Dams but Save the Fish
Old timers inform me, and history seems to bear them out,
that all streams flowing into the ~acific from their hi.:;hest headwaters
tu their mouths, were at one time alive with salmon and
various kinds of sea-run trout but that in every case the building
of dams shut off the fish even thou,;,;h the law required adequate
fish ladders at all such dams.
Now let us face it - dams are necessary and more of them
will have to be built to provide irriga·bion and power, but why
can't we have the fish too?
Just out of curiosity I bad a look at sume of those socalled
fish ladders. As ever,yone should know, a fish can hurdle
<JUite an obstacle if he can get a satisfactory run at it, but some
of those fish ladders were built like steps of a stair as though
the fish mi,~ht be expected to walk up on his tail against a heavy
stream of water.
And just to make sure that he couldn't possibly make it,
the designers of these fish ladders usually placed an abrupt elbow
or right-angle turn somewhere in the ladder so that bhe fish would
knock himself out ac;ainst a wall and float back dead or stunned.
Plainly the intent was to circumvent the law by Qreventing
the fish from getting over the dam. Why'? One exylanation offered
is that the power com{Janies didn't want the fish above the dam lest
they choke the turbines on their way back down river.
It seems that a very practical solution would be for the
Government to build a lor•g gradual canal around the dams by starting
such canal well above the dam i.n the backwater where there is
little current and the construction of a screen to divert; bhe fish
away from the turbines and down the canal. ·:rhe same Kind of a screen
could be used below the dam to divert the upstream-bound fish from
the dam and into the canal to enable them to reach -che headwaters
above the dam.
These canals should be lengthy and with a gradual slope,
much as a highway climbing over a mounbain chain, to allow the fish,
even the small fish, to swim easily against the current with no
jumping over obstacles at all. Enough water should always be diverted
from the turbines to keep this canal full - which would mean
keeping the backwater at a high level. It is no harder to keep a
dam full than half-full.
With such canals around all present dams on the J?~'cific
watershed, the GovernmE..nt could then stock salmon and other mie;ratory
fish in the headwabers of all streams leading into the Pacific
with the result; ·t;hat we'd soon have enormous quanti ties of these
fine food fish and the c- "ling and processint!; of them v,ould become
a major industry emplo' -1 feedi.ng millions of people.
'.
2
Of course this would take money - dams cost money and
so do highways - yet can you think of anything that could yield
a greater return on the investment? I ven·t;ure to say that the
return on these fish would soon pay for all the dams and highways
we'd need for a long time to come.
Right now, the U.S.Government is looking for a site on
Salmon River in Idaho for a dam. If built under present arrangements,
this dam will deQrive the salmon for all time of their
spawning grounds on Salmon River, thus robbin;,; the people of
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington of these wonderful fish because
all present arrangen,ents for moving the salmon above all existing
dams are half-way measures and simply are not adequate.
Senator Church of Idaho has a bill before Congress providin:
s for a restraint on any dam prooosed for Salmon River until
a study can be made to provide once and for all an adequate means
of saving these fish.
I have proposed here such a solution. You, the people of
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, are urged:
(1) To writ;e to Senator Church advisin:s him of your support
and also writing to your own Senators and Congressmen to support
Senator Church's bill.
(2) To write to your own Senators and Congressmen proposing
canals around all dams of the Pacific watershed as I have
outlined here. Don't let anyone tell you the idea is not practical.
I am assured by engineers that it can be done and will be done if
the people will really demand it.
Let us build the dams but save the fish. Please write to
your congressmen at once. This is a real}.y _ ~~hwh~roject.
W. H. Croner,
P.CJ. Box 213,
Fairfield, Idaho.
{__;/,.
t~
2
/
'
Senator Frank Church
United States Senator
Medical Arts Building
Pocatello, Idaho
March 29, l96o
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
Washington 5, D. C.
Dear Senator Church:
I realize that it is impossible for you to answer personally each of the
many letters you receive. However, in regards to your communique of
March 15, 196o, I would like to make just a few comments which I think
you should be aware of, of which you undoubtedly are not. Before commenting
I would like to say that I_did 11et receiv-l!_.YQ\JX :~Jl:~t -~WJ,!;tter ~~~~.I:-~1!&- __ _,
my views of the Salmon River Pres~~tion Bill nor tne feasl01lity of a
study regarding a Sawtooth National Park. I would certainly appreciate
receiving additional information on each matter.
There are two things that perturb me in regards to this issue: (l) fish
biologists indicate that the maze of dams from the ocean to the natural
spawning grounds of the steelhead and salmon are a detriment to the future
preservation of these fish, and (2) the Federal Power Commission has no
right, in my estimation, to dictate policies regarding, for instance, dams
on the Salmon River. Fish biologists have repeatedly warned all the
politicians, as well as those responsible for the construction of the dams,
that the many miles of stored water, because of its warmth, ripens the eggs
of the fish, and as a result the fish are unable to reach their natural
spawning habitat. The future construction of dams on the migrating streams
certainly will affect not only the sportsman but the commercial fisherman
as well. Why, Senator Church, must we as citizens who support you and the
Federal Government allow for agencies such as the Federal Power Commission,
which is a bureaucratic, socialistic organization, to remain in power
instead of leaving decisions in the hands of private enterprisesl I
personally, along with many of my colleagues, feel that we have the greatest
country in the world - please let's not socialize it because I am sure that
you, as well as I, have seen the results of such disastrous destruction of
the freedom of individuals.
It is my opinion that a senator should be very honest in his convictions.
If you are I am sure your political career will be extremely successful.
I oppose these pending programs very vehemently. If I feel that you support
them in any fashion without logical reason for doing so, then I for one will
do all in my power to defeat you, or any such man that will lower himself
to contribute to any such form of socialistic state.
l/.;~
Shirley C. Beard, D.D.S.
SCB:cl
Hon. Frank Church
Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D. c.
Dear Frank:
CENTRAL IDAHO
ROD AND GUN CLUB
CHALLIS, IDAHO
18 October 1960
I i i ilnil [fL!-:(·
IIIA&HINGTON. D
We of the Central Idaho Rod & Gun Club of Challis, Idaho
plead ~ith you to oppose the conatruction of the Nez Perce Dam
on the Snake River below the junction of the Salmon and the Saake.
The construction of this high dam would undoubtedly put an ·end
to our Chinook and Steelhead Salmon rune. Thia last season enriched
our trade area in the amount of $300,000.00. These figures
were compiled by the Custer County Bank of Challis. Next to livestock
this is our best income, and it would create a hardship in
all the areas around the Salmon River if our salmon rune were lost.
We want to be fair and not oppose progress, but with thealternative
dam sites of High Mountain Sheep and Pleasant Valley we see no reaeon
why they cannot take the place of the Nez Perce Dam.
Any assistance you can give us on this matter will be greatly
appreciated by everyone in this area.
P.s.
Very truly your~-'
~~~~---
Adrian Buretedt
President
We also want to thank you for your untiring efforts on our
T.V. problem. We are now in the process of legalizing our booster
station and everyone is over-joyed with its success and your efforts
in seeing ita accompliahment.
Thanks again,
~
ENATOR FRANK CHUF«;h
RESOLUTION
JWASHINGTON. 0. a.
WHEREAS, The City of Salmon, Idaho, and the area surrounding
it are very aware of the importance to the area of Salmon and Steelhead
fishing, which brings into the area many sportsmen from all over the
country; and
WHEREAS, The problem of the passage of anadromous fish -
Salmon and Steelhead - over high river dams has never been adequately
solved; and,
WHEREAS, The proposed Nez Perce Dam, which would block the
waters of the Snake River below the confluence of the Snake and Salmon
Rive:s, would be a serious hazard to fish passage into the Salmon; and,
WHERF..AS, The proposed HJ.gh Mountain Sheep Dam, would be
above the moutn of the Salmon River, and provide no hazard to fish passage
into the Salmon River; and
WHEREAS, The proposed High Mountain Sheep Dam is a private
enterprise, which would be financed by normal corporate financing; and
WHEREAS, Research shows that, if the problem of fish passage
ultimately is solved satisfactorily, a darn at the so-called Lower Canyon
Site, in the Salmon River, would provide more power, in conjunction wi~h
the High Mountain Sheep Dam, and at lower initial cost than the proposed
single dam at the Nez Perce Site in the Snake Ri'•er;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Salmon Chamber
of Commerce, acting as a body, hereby urges the Federal Power Commission,
meeting in hearing on the merits c·E the B'i<Jh Mountain Sheep and the Nez
Perce proposals, give favorable consideration to the High Mountain Sheep
Dam proposal by the Pacific Northwest E'ower Company, as the most
feasible, the most practical, and the one most likely to serve best tre
power and recreation needs of the area.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

United States Senate Committee on interior and insular affaris March 15, 1960
Dear Friend:
You will recall that in my last newsletter
I asked for your views on my Salmon
River Preservation Bill, which would prohibit
dams on the Salmon River pending solution of
the fish passage problem; and on a feasibility
study for a Sawtooth National Park.
I was deeply gratified at the exceptionally
heavy response to my poll, which
indicated widespread interest in these two
proposals. If you returned one of the post
card ballots, your vote is included in the
tabulation which I have reproduced on the
back of this letter. If not, I'm sure you
will be interested, nevertheless, in the
results.
Let me know if you would like to receive
additional information on either of these matters.
Sincerely, Frank Church United States Senate
TABULATION BY COUNTIES OF RESPONSES TO POST CARD POLL OF SENA10R FRANK CHURCH
SALMON RIVER PRESERVATION BILL STUDY ON SAWTOOTH NATIONAL PARK
(Baaed on 8223 replies as or Mar.3)(Based on 8343 replies as or Mar.3)
For Against For ~ainst
8~. ll8 ADA 5 ADAMS -~ --4
624 6o BANNOCK --;-oT 91
Oil s BEAR LAKE 6 ---s 96 BENEWAH 25
~ 23 BINGHAM ~1~ 34
4s BLAINE ~~~ 172 m= BOISE 12
21 BONNER 152 -M 0 44 BONNEVILLE 33a a- 4 BOUNDARY 5 2
5 BUTTE 51 27
-sg~ 55a ·CcAAMNYAOS N 50212 1
1~ CARIBOU 66 9
l;u_ CASSIA 101 l .L. 5 CLARK ~ =rn= J5 CLEARWATER ~
~~ CUSTER 1!4 200
ELMORE 20 oo--- 5 FRANKLIN 6s ~ +M ll FREMONT 6s 10 GEM 6 20
25 18 GOODING 70 ~ ~.... . . . ..
121_ 21 IDAHO 138 ~
1*-
lb JEFFERSON ~6
~~ JEROME 3~~ 65
342 KOOTENAI 27
275 2I LATAH 2 8 22
330 Il LEMHI 220 U9
102 LEWIS 104 4 mr 2 LINCOLN 25 34
15§
15 MADISON 25 li
12 MINIDOKA 25 30
2n 21j: NEZ PERCE 222 15
5 ONEIDA ls 6
ml 12 OWYHEE 3 -fS 1m- 2 PAYETTE 1os
3]_ 10 POWER 3 9
1!21_ 22 SHOSHONE 151j: 31
3Q_ TETON 31 --m ~ 5t TWIN FALLS 255
VALLEY
s4
11 mr- 18 WASHINGTON 23.
7241 ___2.8g 6483 1860
Percentage in favor 88.~~~ Percentage in favor 77.71%
Percentage opposed 11. Percentage opposed 22.29%
RANCH-HO e CATTLE RANCHES REAL TY TS LYNN TUTTLE
P, 0, BOX 186 - CLARKSTON, WASHINGT
PROCESSED
Dear Frank: Enclosed some of my thinking. I agree with your proposition to hold up development on the ? but think it should also include further development on the middle Snake including building of the Little Hells Canyon by Idaho POwer. In the meantime I would let ? go ahead. I would see to it that the ? run was resotred of the clearwater. This used to be one of the ? runs--until the ? took over. There is no reason why it should not be restored ont he Middle Fork and the South Fork. THis would provide us as many fish as the Salmon River. In the meantime further studies could be made ton the upper High Nez Perce dam and further fish studies encouraged. Sincerely yours, Evelyn Tuttle.
Bon. Frank Church, u.s.s.
Senate Office Building
Washington 1 D.c.
Dear Frank:
BRUCE BOWLER
LAWYER
244 SONNA BUILDING
BOISE, IDAHO
PHONE 3·4963
June 17 1 1960
Yesterday I attended a prehearing conference that the Federal Power
Coaaission had t~ough its Bxasdner, Bdward B. ~ah1 at Portland, in
connection with the applications of Pacific Northwest Pewer Co~any
for the Mountain Sheep project and the Washington Public Power Supply
Systea for the Nez Perce project.
It was a good conference and its purpose of facilitating organization
of intervenors• evidence concerning fish passage and its probleas was
accoaplished to considerable .xtent.
I there heard that your Salaon River preservation b i l l 1 S 25861 had
been reported out of Coaaittee. I have seen no Preas notices or heard
any other word in this regard. lry previous pipelines in Washington,
Stewart Brandborg and Charlie Calliaon 1 are no longer with the National
Wildlife Federation, and hence I need sa.. first-hand adVice on status
of your bill and what we might do to aid acc~lishaent of this objective.
I found the conference and those attending very interestinc1 and had
opportunity to beca.e acquainted with Evelyn Cooper and soae of the
staff counsel of the Federal Power Coaaission. I aa certain that we
cannot now risk the Salaon River with Nez Perce, and feel confident
that an adequate record of eVidence of the reasons why, properly aade
to the Federal Power Coaaisaion1 should result in denial of that application.
I was particularly ~ressed by conversations that I had with
the attorneys for the Federal Power Coaaission on the genuineness of
their concern that a good record be aade on the real substance that
exists in the fisheries resource in the areas of controversy concerning
the pending applications for licSJlae0 It looks to • like this is the
tiae to do the big job, and I believe that the intervenors better
appreciate the ~ortance of an adequate record of real evidence on
Hon. Frank Church, u.s.a. -2- June 171 1960
the significance of the Colu.bia River fishery which is acre and aore
being recognized as a biK thing.
Thanks for letting u know about your bill.
Best personal regards.
Sincerely,
~ Bruce Bowler
BB:rc
Dictated 6/16/60
# ~
WJVq
CO~Y
Malvin Brunaon
1295 Suaanne Avenue
Idaho Palla, Idaho
Dear Mr, Bruna on t
June 231 1960
Many thanka tor writing to let
a.J.- . . . . . . .
me know or your approval or my bill to
preserve the Salmon River aa a fiah
sanctuary. I am hopeful that the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will act
on this bill in time for it to be considered
by the Senate before the adJournment of the
Senate, Your interest and support will be
helpful, and I want to thank you again tor
taking the time to write,
11noerely,
hank Church
Hon. Frank Church,
U.S. Senator from Idaho,
The Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Church:
It is my expectation
in all Idaho dailies and in
sometime next week and that
your stand for preservation
S-E-NA1" OR F F al. rfield
D
that the enclosed letter will appear
the great Seattle and Portland papers
these papers will take steps to su9port
of the spawning grounds on Salmon River.
I do not have the details on your bill restraining the building
of dams on the Salmon but know in general what it is expected
to accomplish. I believe it is a step in the right direction but
don't believe you have gone far enough or used enough imagination.
I suggest you give the enclosed letter a careful reading
and then ponder carefully on its potential. The possibilities
have been in my mind for many years and for you it should be the
opportunity of a lifetime.
Senator, you are just the boy to put it over and if you
do, your political future will be assured for all time. You will
become known as the man who saved the Salmon and will be regarded
as the father of the Salmon Industry. It may take you to the
White House.
Drop that Sawtooth Park you are working on. It offers
some advanta .. ~es but many Idahoans dun' t; want the Park. It is
making you enemies and causing trouble within the ranks of the
Farty. I'm not a stockman but I question the value of a Park
in that area and have published arguments eetting forth my views.
These arguments I will forward to you later.
But this save-the-fish plan is something we can all •!;et
together on. It should greatly benefit not only Idaho but the
entire Nor~hwest. It is something that should have been dune
over sixty years ago but it is still not too late. I sug.:;est you
m8ke it yuur main effort. It will take years to 9ut over, but
once done you will be established in the eyes of the Ration and
the World for all time.
~ Please send me a
~ ~xists at present.
CoDy to: Sen. Dworshak.
Rep. Budge.
Rep. Pfost.
copy of your proposed
VI. H. Cr,,ner,
Democratic ?reci.nct Committeeman,
Fairfield, Idaho.
Let us Build the Dams but Save the Fish
Old timers inform me, and history seems to bear them out,
that all streams flowing into the ~acific from their hi.:;hest headwaters
tu their mouths, were at one time alive with salmon and
various kinds of sea-run trout but that in every case the building
of dams shut off the fish even thou,;,;h the law required adequate
fish ladders at all such dams.
Now let us face it - dams are necessary and more of them
will have to be built to provide irriga·bion and power, but why
can't we have the fish too?
Just out of curiosity I bad a look at sume of those socalled
fish ladders. As ever,yone should know, a fish can hurdle